affiliate_belboon_get_programme

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the operation is a read-only fetch and specifies return contents (commission, status, advertiser URL), but does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple getter this is adequate, but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then concise usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential facts: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns ('single Programme', including key fields). Minor omissions like error cases or auth notes are acceptable for a straightforward getter, and the return value description is especially useful because no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to programmeId by calling it the 'network programme id', clarifies it must already be known, and directs users to list_programmes for discovery. This adds valuable context beyond the raw string type, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Fetch a single programme on Belboon'), the exact lookup key ('by its network programme id'), and differentiates from sibling tools by naming the Belboon network and pairing with list_programmes. This clearly distinguishes it from other network-specific get_programme tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id') and provides the alternative workflow ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives the agent clear decision guidance relative to a specific sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.